General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 - Term Paper Example

? General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 Total Number of Words: 2,007 Introduction The general aviation industry in the United States is one of the main socio-economic contributors in this country. However, the unjust legal issues with regards to aviation safety operations had triggered a lot of aviation manufacturers to close down their plants due to unlimited product liabilities (Kovarik, 2008). With regards to this issue, general information concerning the creation and enactment of the General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) of 1994 will first be tackled followed by discussing the historical circumstances that has triggered the development of GARA of 1994 and the state of general aviation in the United States. Eventually, the impact of GARA 1994 on the socio-economic welfare of the manufacturers of general aviation aircraft before and after the Act was enacted will be thoroughly discussed. About General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) of 1994 With the purpose of amending the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA)1 was enacted (Angelley, 2011; Clinton, 1994). Under GARA of 1994, the term “general aviation” includes all types of aircrafts with no more than 20 passengers that had received an airworthiness certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (Kovarik, 2008; Clinton, 1994; Kister, 1998). The said Act applies to all aircrafts 18 years old or more when the accident happens (Angelley, 2011; Clinton, 1994). GARA is an Act of Congress that was made under the Senate Bill S. 1458 – 103rd Congress. Aside from preserving the rights of the pilots and passengers, the main reason why the Act was created is to protect the aircraft manufacturers from the prolonged adverse socio-economic impact of product liability in small aircrafts of not more than 20 passengers (Angelley, 2011; Kister, 1998). Even though a fatal accident was caused by negligence on the part of the aircraft manufacturers, the said Act legally somehow protects all aircrafts manufacturers to some extent in case an accident happens (Angelley, 2011; Clinton, 1994). In response to the legal immunity that was extended to all U.S.-based aircraft manufacturers, a lot of people have been continuously questioning the ethical issues behind the said Act (Kovarik, 2008; Rodengen, 2007; Brady, 2006). In fact, the enactment of GARA 1994 has made a lot of general aviation aircraft victims and their attorneys become frustrated for failing to receive justice for losing the lives of their loved ones or facing the consequences of physical injuries caused by the general aviation aircraft accidents (Kovarik, 2008). The main purpose of implementing the GARA of 1994 is to create some exceptions wherein the general aviation manufacturers can be protected from the risks of lawsuits caused by manufacturing designs created more than 18 years since the aircraft was released from the warehouse of general aviation companies2. On top of the number of years when the general aviation aircraft was manufactured, other important considerations that will not protect the general aviation manufacturers under the GARA of 1994 include the following conditions: (1) in case the manufacturer of general aviation aircraft can prove that there has been a misrepresentation or withheld information coming from the FAA that could somehow have triggered the plane to crash; (2) in case the victims of the plane crash is a passenger who is at the time of the crash receiving emergency or medical treatment; (3) in case the person who died or was physically injured in the plane crash was not a passenger of the aircraft; and (4) in case the lawsuit has a written warranty that directly involve a specific aircraft3 (Angelley, 2011; Kovarik, 2008). With regards to the future maintenance requirements of the aircraft, the said Act does not protect the owners of the general aviation aircraft for not being able to perform their responsibility in maintaining the quality of the aircraft’s engine (Kovarik, 2008). To ensure that the manufacturers of general aviation aircraft is protected under the GARA of 1994, the aircraft should have no more than 20 passenger seats and have received an airworthiness certificate coming from the FAA even before the aircraft accident will happen4 (Kovarik, 2008). It is equally important that the aircraft was not engaged in any scheduled passenger carriage when the aircraft accident happens (Kovarik, 2008). Historical Circumstances that Led to GARA of 1994 and State of General Aviation Between the 1980s up to 1990s, the general aviation aircraft manufacturers in the United States had significantly decreased the number of aircraft units manufactured since 1978 up to the early 1990s. Back in 1978, the U.S. general aviation reached a point where they can manufacture as much as 18,000 units (Rodengen, 2007; Clinton, 1994). Because of legal issues concerning its operational safety, the number of general aviation aircraft that was manufactured back in 1986 fell up to 4,000 units down to 928 in 1994 (Kovarik, 2008; Rodengen, 2007; Clinton, 1994). In 1993, the number of manufactured aircrafts surprisingly fell down to 550 units (Clinton, 1994). Specifically the significant decrease in the production of general aviation aircraft had caused roughly 100,000 people lose their well-paid jobs (Kovarik, 2008; Anton, 1998; Clinton, 1994). It also increases the risks wherein the general aviation manufacturers in the United States were close to reaching the point of extinction (Clinton, 1994). Because of the unlimited product liability imposed on all general aviation manufacturers in the U.S., the stakeholders of the said industry was left with no choice but to create lobbying among the representatives of the Congress in Kansas to legally support the general aviation manufacturers from unlimited product liabilities (Kovarik, 2008). Eventually, the process of going through lobbying with the Congress became successful when ex-President Clinton decided to sign the legislation on GARA 1994 (Clinton, 1994). Impact on the Manufacturing of General Aviation Aircraft Before and After the Act was Enacted Before the GARA of 1994 was enacted, a lot of U.S.-based general aviation aircraft companies were facing serious legal problems. Prior to the creation of GARA 1994, the general aviation laws in the U.S. do not consider the legal rights of the general aviation aircraft manufacturers (Kovarik, 2008). For this reason, even though some of the aircraft accidents that had occurred in the past had nothing to do with the manufacturing of aircraft designs, a lot of the general aviation manufacturers were still facing the risks of defending themselves from unlimited court cases filed by the general public5. In relation to the risks of facing unlimited court cases, the absence of the GARA of 1994 may have had contributed to more job loss in the United States (Kovarik, 2008). The continuous increase in the number of lawsuits filed against the manufacturers of general aviation aircraft has made the entire general aviation industry in the U.S. lose a lot of money. Aside from wasting a lot of precious time solving unnecessary legal cases, unlimited product liability has made the entire U.S. general aviation industry lose a lot of money to solve legal problems (Kovarik, 2008). Upon analyzing the case of the U.S. general aviation industry, it is clear that the presence of unlimited product liability set on this particular sector has deprived them of having the opportunity not only to improve the technology they use in building general aviation aircraft but also find new ways on how they can avoid aircraft accidents (Kovarik, 2008; Rodriguez, 2005). Often times, aircraft safety include the need to effectively train their future pilots on how to easily detect signs of technical problems prior to each take offs. Due to the absence of sufficient government support and legal protection, the global competitive advantages of the U.S. aviation industry in the past had seriously suffered. Back then, most part of the European countries had already established their own similar legislations (Kovarik, 2008). For this reason, the U.S. general aviation industry had lost a large part of their global market shares to its close competitors in Europe (Kovarik, 2008; United States Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, and Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law, 1994). Aside from the recreation of the lost jobs within the general aviation industry, the enactment of the GARA of 1994 had somehow revitalized the overall long-term development of the general aviation industry in the United States (Kovarik, 2008). It also created more opportunity for the future pilots to receive sufficient training grounds which could help them minimize the risks of aircraft-related accidents6 (General Aviation Manufacturers' Association, 2011). Instead of requiring the U.S. manufacturers of general aviation aircraft to pay large amount of money on lawsuit purposes, the enactment of the GARA of 1994 has made the general aviation aircraft manufacturers able to make use of their excess money on the improvements of their research and development (R&D) programs (Kovarik, 2008). Instead of wasting a large sum of money in resolving tort cases, huge monetary investments made on their R&D could help increase the quality and ability of the general aviation manufacturers to upgrade the use of their existing technology (McAllister, 1995). As a result, the U.S. general aviation industry could further develop their advancement in the use of more efficient technologies which are necessary in terms of improving their overall quality service and safety requirements (Kovarik, 2008; Rodriguez, 2005). Discussion The long-term socio-economic benefits associated with the enactment of the GARA of 1994 outweigh its long-term socio-economic consequences. Even though there has been quite a lot of people who had been continuously questioning the ethical issues behind the said Act (Kovarik, 2008; Rodengen, 2007; Brady, 2006), enactment of the GARA 1994 has still contributed to more positive outcomes particularly with regards to the U.S. employment opportunities, further improvements in the quality of U.S. general aviation aircraft, preventing the extinction of the U.S. general aviation industry, and continuous improvements of the U.S. general aviation industry (General Aviation Manufacturers' Association, 2011; Kovarik, 2008; Rodriguez, 2005; United States Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, and Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law, 1994). Aside from increasing the risks of business losses and bankruptcy, the main problem with imposing unlimited product liability on the U.S. manufacturers of general aviation aircraft is that excessive filing of legal cases prevents them from having the opportunity to invest their money on various projects that can help them further improve the safety and quality service they render to their customers (Kovarik, 2008; Rodengen, 2007; Rodriguez, 2005). As a result, some firms within the U.S. general aviation sector had to close down their plants. This explains why a lot of people between 1980s to 1990s had lost their jobs (Kovarik, 2008; Anton, 1998; Clinton, 1994). Conclusion and Recommendations The unlimited product liability imposed on the U.S. general aviation industry had seriously damaged the local manufacturers’ ability to create globally competitive aircrafts. By imposing unlimited product liability on U.S. general aviation industry, almost all of the local manufacturers of general aviation aircraft are at risk of facing unnecessary legal charges. As a common knowledge, not all aircraft accidents are caused by the negligence of the aircraft manufacturers. There are instances where aircraft accidents could result from natural disturbance such as typhoon or hurricane. For this reason, imposing unlimited product liability on the local manufacturers of general aviation aircraft seems to be illogical and unjust. The U.S. general aviation industry has a lot of positive contribution not only to the U.S. overall economy but also when it comes to creating job for the local people. Because of the socio-economic importance of the U.S. general aviation industry, the U.S. government should continuously support the future developments of the U.S. general aviation industry. By extending some political support to this particular industry, the U.S. manufacturers of general aviation aircraft will have the competitive advantage to avoid massive lay-offs as they try to further improve the quality and increase the number of general aviation aircraft they manufacture each year. Through legal and political support, the U.S. general aviation industry can regain its business strength in terms of being able to compete with its global competitors. References Angelley, W. (2011, October 25). General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from http://www.hightangel.com/aviation-accident-information/2011/10/general-aviation-revitalization-act-of-1994/ Anton, J. (1998). A critical evaluation of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of1994. 63 Journal of Air of Law and Commerce, 63(759), 807-808. Brady, O. (2006). The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 - An Update. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 71, 411. Clinton, W. (1994, August 17). Statement on Signing the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. The White House. Retrieved November 18, 2013, from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=48984 General Aviation Manufacturers' Association. (2011). Five year results: A report to the President and Congress on the General Aviation Revitalization Act. General Aviation Manufacturers' Association. Kister, T. (1998). General Aviation Revitalization Act: Its effect on manufacturers. Def. Counsel J., 65(1). Kovarik, K. (2008). A good idea stretched too far: Amending the General Aviation Revitalization Act to mitigate unintended inequities. Seattle University Law Review, 31(4), 973. McAllister, T. (1995). A "Tail" of liability reform: General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 & the General Aviation Industry in the United States. TRANSP. L.J., 23, 316. Rodengen, J. (2007). Fernandez, E. & Lieber, A. (eds) "The Legend of Cessna (a detailed, documented history of Cessna Aircraft jCompany, supported by them). Florida: Write Stuff Enterprises. Rodriguez, J. (2005). Tort Reform & GARA: Is Repose Incompatible with Safety? ARIZ. L. REV.,47, 591-59. United States. Congress. House. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law. (1994). General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1993: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, Second Session on H.R. 3087, to Amend the Federal Aviation. U.S. Government Printing Office. Read More